Storm, In Interest of

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Citation223 N.W.2d 170
Docket NumberNo. 2--57024,2--57024
PartiesIn the Interest of Charles Hanlen STORM, Appellant.
Decision Date13 November 1974

Page 170

223 N.W.2d 170
In the Interest of Charles Hanlen STORM, Appellant.
No. 2--57024.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Nov. 13, 1974.

Page 171

Smith, Peterson, Beckman, Willson & Peterson, Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Lorna Lawhead Williams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.

UHLENHOPP, Justice.

The question in this case is whether the trial court properly ordered the sheriff of Pottawattamie County, Iowa, to deliver Charles Hanlen Storm, age 19, to a representative of the California Youth Authority for return to that state under the interstate juvenile compact, § 231.14, Code 1973.

Charles was born June 20, 1954. While living in California he become involved with the law. On December 11, 1967, when Charles was 13, the California juvenile court found him to be within § 602 of the California Welfare & Institutions Code, adjudged him a ward of the court, and committed him to the California Youth Authority. That court has not since modified or set aside its order. The order constitutes an adjudication of delinquency. In re S, 10 Cal.App.3d 944, 89 Cal.Rptr. 685.

From that time to the present, § 607 of the California Welfare & Institutions Code has provided in pertinent part, 'The court may retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a ward or dependent child of the juvenile court until such ward or dependent child attains the age of 21 years.' The California Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Traynor, construed § 607 to mean, 'The jurisdiction of the juvenile court over a ward continues until he becomes twenty-one or until the court is satisfied that he has reformed or that further supervision under the law is unnecessary or inadvisable. Welfare and Institutions Code, § 750 (now § 607). It may (from time to time) modify or set aside its orders concerning him. . . . When defendant was declared a ward of the juvenile court, h became subject to its continuing jurisdiction.' People v. Sanchez, 21 Cal.2d 466, 470--471, 132 P.2d 810, 813.

On December 12, 1972, Charles signed a parole agreement with the Youth Authority, specifying certain conditions. The agreement recited, 'I also know that I can be under the control of the Youth Authority, under my current commitment, until 6/20/75' (he would then become 21). The he became subject to its continuing jurisdiction.' the parole or released Charles from it.

In March 1973, Charles again became involved with the law in California. The Youth Authority charged him with violating three conditions of his parole agreement. Before disposition of those charges, Charles absconded. On August 31, 1973, local authorities apprehended him in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. He was then 19.

Both California and Iowa have in force the interstate juvenile compact. Code 1973, § 231.14; Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code, § 1300. The California Youth Authority, proceeding in the Pottawattamie juvenile court under article V of the compact, requisitioned the return of Charles. The court appointed an attorney to represent him.

Charles objected to the proceeding on the grounds that (1) the Pottawattamie juvenile court had no jurisdiction and (2) the interstate compact creates an unconstitutional classification of juveniles for interestate transfer purposes.

After a hearing, the juvenile court granted the requisition. Charles appealed, asserting the same two grounds here.

I. Jurisdiction. Article V(a) of the compact states that the demanding state (California) shall present its requisition to the 'appropriate court' of the responding state (Iowa). That court then orders the 'delinquent

Page 172

juvenile' taken into custody. The officer brings the juvenile before that court, which informs him of the demand from the other state, appoints counsel, and allows a reasonable time for testing the legality of the proceeding. If that court then finds the proceedings proper, it delivers the juvenile over to the representative of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Stuart v. State ex rel. Jannings, 2-59298
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 25, 1977
    ...statement. The foregoing would facially imply our juvenile courts lose jurisdiction once a child becomes 18. See In Interest of Storm, 223 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa But as observed in Northern Natural Gas Company v. Forst, 205 N.W.2d at 695, other statutory enactments and guiding precepts must ......
  • Paul v. Paul, s. 5184
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 29, 1980
    ...of the purposes of alimony and our desire to see those purposes achieved, we hold that award should be placed in trust . . ." 223 N.W.2d at 170. It is important to note that in this case the appellate court not only found that exceptional circumstances warranted the creation of a trust fund......
  • State v. Cook, 50129-1-I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • February 24, 2003
    ...54.02(j); see Matter of N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tex.1999). 12. See A Juvenile, 484 N.E.2d at 997; see also In the Interest of Storm, 223 N.W.2d 170, 172-73 (Iowa...
  • Kelly, In Interest of, s. 3--58162
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 17, 1975
    ...worsens. These are the kinds of special considerations which make different juvenile court procedures valid. In re Interest of Storm, 223 N.W.2d 170 (Iowa). Cf. Aubry v. Gadbois, 50 Cal.App.3d 470, 123 Cal.Rptr. 365. We thus reject Jeffrey's final We affirm the decision as modified in divis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT